An
Auckland caregiver had no entitlement to a $50,000 bonus bond gifted to her
because of undue influence over a widower she once looked after.
Three weeks prior to
his death from cancer in August 2000, Arnold Willis arranged repayment of
$50,000 in bonus bonds which were then re-registered in the joint names of
himself and former caregiver Pamela Joyce Thompson. On his death, Mrs Thompson looked to take full
ownership; as joint owner of the bonus bonds she would take full title by
survivorship. Any payout on the bonus
bonds was blocked after Mr Willis’ son Leslie claimed the joint registration
was obtained “by fraud”.
Fifteen years later,
the story unfolded in evidence before the High Court. Leslie said a private investigator hired soon
after his father’s death failed to track down where Mrs Thompson lived. A renewed investigation fifteen years later
found her at an Auckland address where she had lived for the previous eleven
years. She is listed in current
telephone listings under “J Thompson” rather than her full initials of “PJ
Thompson”.
The court was told Mrs
Thompson was employed by an agency to care for Mr Arnold Willis for a few
months in 1997, before she left to join another agency. According to her evidence she subsequently
formed a close relationship with Mr Arnold Willis, visiting him at weekends
when the replacement caregiver did not attend.
Son Leslie was disturbed to find in August 2000 a photocopy of a will
and other paper work which appeared to have the effect of leaving his father’s
entire estate to Mrs Thompson. On
learning of the existence of these documents, Mr Arnold Willis was upset. It was not what he intended. He could not remember which lawyer he had
been to when signing these documents. A
new will was prepared and signed, replicating an earlier will which left
everything to his son.
Justice Moore said Mrs
Thompson was at times evasive and contradictory when giving evidence. She claimed not to be aware of the nature of
Mr Arnold Willis’ illness or his frailty.
He was suffering from cancer and with the complications of muscular
dystrophy was confined to a wheelchair or mobility scooter for the last few
years of his life. She claimed not to
understand the terminology in a will, but then said she was shocked to learn
she was a beneficiary. She said she had
no involvement in Mr Arnold Willis’ financial affairs, but there was evidence
of a joint cash savings account operated by them.
Justice Moore ruled Mrs
Thompson’s entitlement to Mr Willis’ $50,000 bonus bonds be set aside on grounds
of undue influence. He further ruled the
gift of bonus bonds be set aside as unconscionable. Mrs Thompson actively extorted the benefit
from Mr Willis at a time when he was particularly vulnerable and labouring
under a significant disability, Justice Moore said.
Willis
v. Thompson – High Court (18.07.17)
17.081